Archive for the ‘Kirk Nurmi’ Tag

I would, as an American, half a world away from all the action and media frenzy, if any, be almost a sequestered juror. Some of you who have read my prior coverage of the trial may doubt that, but I challenge any of you to cite any examples of my reporting something that had not yet been testified to in court. As I said: sequestered. Almost.

Not only can’t I discern the accents of the South African newscasters, the so-called best of the best — and there are numerous accents, not just one — but the technical acumen exhibited by SABC, as an alum who’d made it to the NFL might say, “THE South African Broadcast Network (goofy smile),” can only be equated to the middle-school TV production done by my younger son’s seventh-grade class in 2001.

As compared to most of the developed world’s media, whatever story they try to spin on one side or another (if any) is completely overshadowed by the comical presentation of its production teams. I have been, for all intents and purposes, a sequestered reporter. I have watched reporters gargle, towel off, blot their underarms, button their blouses, fix their hair (or dearth thereof), and scratch their balls.

As to sentencing. In matters of domestic violence, as a husband who has never lifted a hand to his wife of nearly 35 years, I tend to err on the harsh side. Therefore, I would not blink, and I would give him 25 years, the maximum allowable sentence for the crime of which he was convicted. (Note to Judge: He is no longer the accused; he’s a convict. YOU convicted him!) I would make this concurrent with the gun charges, because an out-of-shape 60-year-old Oscar Pistorius would be of limited danger to women or anyone else, and he would have very limited earning power at that age as well. He will have paid for his crimes.

The witness the other day who argued that prison was an improper place for Oscar Pistorius because “they have condoms there” was still silently cracking people up Friday morning when Roux first opened his pie-hole to argue Mitigation. So the jolly old weasel defense attorney played the “Oscar the Handicapped Victim” card to the max, and tried to soften up Judge Masipa by using his whiny, condescending offerings of paybacks and deterrents to society that would pay not even lip service to the real victims in this case, whining about how the killer’s debt is to society. Society, society, society. Then he brought up Ubuntu, and quoted a story in it of a goat. He equated Reeva Steenkamp with a fucking GOAT. The man is insane. Get this goddamned turkey away from the microphone. If Roux ever slept with a female of his own species, he’d know the difference between Reeva Steenkamp and a fucking goat!

I think the final undeserved slap in the face to the Steenkamps was the claim that Pistorius be given leniency was because although there were no shower rails at either the convict’s home or in the prison’s showers, his home shower came with a stool or a bench so he could wank freely between the two, and in addition be able to balance on his arse while using one or both hands, hence keeping his arms in shape to continue to work out all of his upper and lower appendages and limbs, or what remain of them. And that’s being nice to him.

On the dark side, Pistorius, with his snake-like eyes, knew VERY well who and what part he was shooting at. He’d accused her of messing around on him, even though she’d had very few (and longer-term) relationships compared to him, she’d reportedly been heard or commented to a friend that he had recently raged at her, “go ahead, fuck them all if you want,” or words to that effect, which is why he was shooting at that height. Do you think he was trying to hit a fucking pygmy in the head? If he were shooting at an adult’s chest, he’d be shooting at about 48″ off the ground. His first shot, the one that hit her in the hip, was 34″ from the floor. All shots were about the same height, within three inches. Isn’t anyone curious about his target? His first one was pretty close – the one that hit her in the hip. Just a couple of inches off target.

I was honestly very surprised to hear Gerry Nel request a minimum sentence of ten years. Even if he wants to squeeze Masipa for 15. This was a heinous crime, and the spolled, pampered little shit who committed it deserves some serious time. I figured a guy nicknamed “The Pit Bull” would have looked to rip off a bigger bite than that.

I’ve got friends who did more time than that in tougher prisons for simple possession of a joint.

What the hell kind of deterrent is ten years supposed to be? The suggested punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crimes. Let’s remember, we’re talking about multiple felonies. He’s now got three strikes on him. In many states, he’d get mandatory life without parole under the “Three Strikes You’re Out Law.” Three felony convictions, you’re out of society, and in for life.

Your comments are requested. Please note this was published IN ADVANCE OF the Tuesday morning Oct. 21 session.

Roux calls an anesthetist (not an anesthesiologist, who has an MD) to testify (speculate) as to the contents of Reeva Steenkamp’s stomach, which she was not qualified to testify about because, as she kept repeating, she was not a forensic pathologist. So where was the forensic pathologist? Ah, Wednesday. Must have been on the links, my lady.

She takes up a good bit of the morning, and then Roux pulls a bit of a shocker, but the effect is soon lessened, because AGAIN, he chose the least qualified clinician he could possibly find, save an intern, to testify — a social worker and probation officer who normally does assessments of children and adolescents after they’ve been arrested for commission of minor crimes. She specifies that she doesn’t treat the patients (clients) she sees, but just presumably listens and comforts. Also not expert witness material.

She said she first saw Oscar on Feb 15, 2013, the day after the murder — he told her he missed Reeva so much, and that he was heartbroken. Later on, he told her, she volunteered, that he “accidentally shot her,” which is not the Oscar Pistorius we’ve heard come clean in court. After the assessment, her participation should have been over, but she wouldn’t let it go.

The social worker continued that it upset her that she’d read in the newspaper and heard in the media that he wasn’t sincere about his feelings, that he took acting lessons, was crying when needed, and that he was taking lightly what happened, so on Tuesday of this week she decided to come forward because she thought he was heartbroken and traumatized.

[Takes big step backwards] So, she’s got a reason to come forward — to improve Oscar’s public relations profile and counter the bad PR he’s been getting from everyone in the media for shedding crocodile tears, crying on cue, and taking acting lessons. In other words, she’s motivated. Nothing like having an expert witness who comes in off the street and wants to do something for you, is there?

She goes on to testify to Nel, “He (the defendant) kept saying he was sorry about the loss, about her parents, the loss, he loved her, etc. And so Nel correctly calls her testimony hearsay — it’s all the defendant’s emotions. Roux got up to object to the line of questioning, and the lawyers exchanged gentle feel-out jabs with the judge, and evidently Nel seemed to win, but ended up apologizing to the judge and slightly changed his tack.

He cried, talked about the future he says they’d planned together, the loss, that he was never going to see her again, her parents and what they’re going through, and she saw a heartbroken man who suffered emotionally. She was assigned to be his probation officer as a term of his bail, and they turned over a bunch of papers as evidence of those logs. He never said he was sorry for what he had done. never showed remorse and said he’s sorry for what he did, specifically. “I’m sorry for my loss. I’m heartbroken.” But she couldn’t speculate what a person’s emotions might be after he’d shot someone. He was traumatized, he was emotional, he cried. He talked and said how he misses Reeva. Didn’t talk that day about shooting her. Sorry about what happened, sorry for the loss — sorry for the parents, misses Reeva, spent a lot of time discussing his version of what had happened, and he talked a lot about his own feelings. She checked that he was seeing his psychologist, which he was, and had regular contact with him as his probation officer in person or by phone.

The last witness of the day was a ballistics expert whom some had called verbose before he took the stand. Verbose? Anyone remember President Clinton’s remarks to the Democratic Convention in 1996? He took a record 70 minutes. His 3300-word prepared speech went close to 6000 words. But he kept his audience mostly riveted. Mostly.

This ballistics expert, who was also not a forensic pathologist, talked endlessly about ammunition and how a gun works, he referred to a semi-automatic pistol as an “auto-loader” and never did talk about a safety mechanism of any kind. Not only that, but the moron didn’t even bring a demonstration gun that looked similar but was painted with a flame-orange barrel, maybe a plug in or a bar across the barrel, and a half-functioning firing pin. So there stood Captain Boring, trying to explain how a gun worked using a piece of paper. Nice.

In my mind, and in my notes, all we got from the firearms expert or ballistics expert was that a bullet could be deflected by up to 1-3 degrees by going through a door before ripping pieces of a human body to shreds. Great. For that I stay up til 6am, and the bastard didn’t even figure in drag coefficients OR the type of wood. Fraud.

The one-hour afternoon session with this guy should have gone until 4:15, according to agreements made with other court employees before they went on a two-week break, but it went exactly one hour, before Roux begged my lady to call it a day, after taking the 1-2 hour for lunch and returning at 2 , and then at 3 they’re done, jolly old fun.

That’s how they work the day away in the merry old trial of Oz.

Mercifully, the week in court ends tonight, Thursday night (early Friday morning) in the U.S., and so a very interested — some may say obsessed — crowd on Websleuth, DigitalSpy, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media that God knows I have no time for, will have a chance to celebrate Mothers’ Day in relative peace, as long as they don’t sneak in a nap after dinner so they can stay up all night to watch the barely competent witnesses line up for the defense on Monday.

Streaming AC360 on CNN, waiting for the Pistorius trial to resume in about an hour, and wondering what the muse will hit me across the face with this evening. The latest Cadillac Escalade commercial comes on. The background music is pretty compelling: David Bowie’s “Fame.” Now, I’m not a particular fan of David Bowie – I don’t like his politics – but this particular tune is pretty slick. Great lyrics, some very fitting in this case. So, I click off this window and over to the CNN window, and there’s this shiny white Escalade pulling up in front of a shiny white house that looks spookily similar to Oscar Pistorius’ house. Huh? (Shakes head to ensure he’s not dreaming.)

It happens more often than we think; that we’re doing something, and our attention is distracted by a completely different thing, and then something within that distraction turns out to be somewhere between borderline related to or incredibly poignant given the unrelated thing we were involved in before we were first distracted. The subconscious mind works in strange ways….

Yesterday’s testimony was incredibly boring. I believe the only thing that came out of the entire day was the fact that the front door to Oscar’s house was left almost imperceptibly open. I don’t believe I’d heard anyone testify to that before.

Both daddy and daughter witnesses spun wildly detailed versions of a very simple story, hers slightly different than his. They were very difficult to listen to, and there was no surprise Mr. Nel let them both off pretty easily. All he really needed to do was ask one question to each of the defense witnesses on cross: “And your testimony means…. what…?” Upon receiving a shrug as a reply, I would cut the witnesses free in disgust and called whomever today’s leadoff batter is. Hopefully, he’ll be able to keep me awake past tea….”

— 00:10h PDT 6 May 2014 —

The live television stream from the courtroom doesn’t come on until the witness is already taking questions. The questions are all softballs. Naturally,the husband on the other side of the Pistorius house never did hear a shot, just “crying,” which the witness described very adeptly as “crying.”

There’s weeping, sobbing, bawling, wailing, howling, all kinds of descriptive words one could use to describe a form of crying, and each has a different facet. This guy never heard of either term, in English or Afrikaans..

The woman describes something she heard as “a bang sound. There’s no other way to describe the bang than as a bang.”

Not in EITHER language you speak??? Kitchen pots falling on tile make a “bang” sound. A garage door closing on a car makes a “bang” sound too. So does a firecracker. And so does an M-80, and a grenade. But to her, it’s all the same. She describes a bang about as well as her husband describes “crying.”

Are these people totally deficient, or are they lying? Both of them have watched the entire trial, because the whole world is, and they’re his (the defendant’s) neighbors, so of course they’re interested. They were useless; time-fillers.

The next friendly neighbor stated that she woke up to hear someone crying very loud, so loud he could been in her house (questionable analogy), and after waking her husband to see if he heard the screams, which he said he did but thought they happened in a dream, she said she told him (55:30 mark) “…I thought that maybe a security guard had been shot.”

Curious, since she’d never mentioned hearing a shot, and I can’t imagine one single voice producing more decibels than a 9mm pistol. [Note to self: record witness’ impression of Oscar’s scream for use as ringtone.] For some reason, Nel didn’t catch that; maybe he was as bored as I was, listening to this tedious repetition of stuff we’ve heard so often before.

In the first place, I cannot understand how the people in the two houses next to Pistorius’ failed to hear the gunshots. Four gunshots in a bathroom, with a window open, at 0300 in the morning. Not a one of them. How can anyone take them seriously? They’ve all watched the trial, and they’re all testifying against anyone who said earlier that they’d heard the shots. So, what does that mean? That there was no gun? That Reeva Steenkamp wasn’t all shot up? That Oscar didn’t do it? How is Gerrie Nell letting them get away with this, and why, my lady, is the judge herself not getting involved in silencing these witnesses whose stories are to a great part made up specifically to dispel the prosecution’s case?

I suppose we’ll all get to see what goes down Thursday morning at Zero Dark Thirty Pacific Time, after a round of presumably peaceful elections in South Africa.

I remember when HLN was sort of a trimmed-down version of CNN. They would run most of the stories, albeit much shortened versions of them, and they’d repeat or update their programming in half-hour slots. They never covered anything in depth, but their mere existence was to provide a broadcast equivalent of USA Today, America’s cartoon newspaper. As a straight print journalist, I won’t say those were HLN’s best days, but, well… OK, those were HLN’s best days. USA Today sucks, the original HLN sucks, and their present iterations all suck. And in greater measure than in the past.

On another front, we had CourtTV, an innovation that started more as a smaller-scale C-SPAN network. Now, CourtTV has devolved into TruTV, which broadcasts the so-called reality shows over and over again ad nauseum, and barely covers any live news. And a new HLN was born as well, utilizing the most sensational hosts, discussing the most sensational topics, and basically raking in the dough by playing to people’s collective fear, hatred, and need to feel superior to someone in the public spotlight.

Trials were covered, and fairly impartially if I recall, by CourtTV, which is now obsolete, but their anchors weren’t “star personalities” of television-land, they weren’t psychological analysts with BIG problems of their own, and they didn’t appear on Dancing With The Stars. In fact, since the Nancy Grace nip-slip on DWTS, those initials now mean “Dancing With Tits Showing.”

But Nancy Grace isn’t the only talking fat-head leading the rabble. Vinnie Politan, a former prosecutor in Bergen County, NJ, is equally snarky and distasteful, and between the two of them, they make a good duo in what seems like a national campaign of blood lust. Adding fuel to the fire is Joey Jackson, who sounds almost exactly like Jerry Lewis. In character. And sometimes Jackson makes less sense than Jerry Lewis as well.

During the trial I’ve watched the WPTV stream, without any commentary whatsoever, and that’s what I want to hear. I want to be able to judge the case for myself without hearing what these idiots have to say on commercial television, cable or otherwise. It’s only now, that the trial is over, that I click over to HLN’s stream to see what the less-educated “Joe the Plumber” on the street is watching. And it’s sad.

In the Arias case, there are mitigating factors. Not all eight reasons Jennifer Wilmott put forward. The fact that Arias was 27 when she killed Alexander is irrelevant. The fact that she had and still has dissociative personality disorder, however, is crucial information, and that must be taken into account by the jury, because it exacerbated her vulnerability. In fact, it created and broadcast her vulnerability to any man who came close enough to her to sense it.

Travis Alexander came close enough to sense it. He started overstepping her boundaries from the moment they met, because her vulnerability gave way to his predatory instinct. Whereas his various Mormon female friends may have thought he was a virgin, ALL of his male friends, Mormon or not, knew Travis was a pussy-hound.

This too is a mitigating factor in Jodi Arias’ favor. As is her feeling of low self-worth. She doesn’t project that in the courtroom or in her many TV interviews, but instead she portrays herself as she wishes she were: stable, ruminative, confident, and professional. It’s part of her untreated mental illness.

It would be nice if she were given the services of a psychiatrist, or a team of psychiatrists while in prison; she might actually come out – not unscathed – but certainly not as scarred as she is now, and somewhat healed. Her psychological wounds are as gaping as Travis Alexander’s neck wound. Some people have failed to appreciate that because they’re faced with shit like HLN’s talking fat-heads, but with the blatantly sensational imagery so prominently and almost joyfully featured on their website.

HLN’s credibility took a big hit when Casey Anthony was judged not guilty, and they’re setting themselves up for another hit by putting all their chips on a death penalty verdict. Personally, I hope they lose their shirts. Except for Nancy Grace. From her I’ve seen and heard enough.

Finally it’s in the jury’s hands. My first reaction to that, and probably a lot of people’s, was a long, slow exhale of a very deep breath.

But it was followed immediately by the thought that Judge Sherry Stephens’ failure to sequester the jury, at the very least for deliberations, might arguably be grounds for a mistrial.

Hopefully the jurors haven’t been burned by the out-of-control media maelstrom in and around the Maricopa County courthouse, fueled and fanned by HLN; but I cannot imagine having the self-control to sequester myself in my own home with all the computers, smartphones, televisions, and radios turned off, and wearing a pair of blinders and shootin’ earplugs for the entire length of this trial.

Hearing or seeing evidence of other people’s opinions on a case as big as this in a city that small, is literally impossible in 2013. And it’s not like you can walk around your local grocery store wearing a sign that says: “Arias juror. Do not attempt to communicate with me under penalty of law.” Nor is it likely that you could ignore all the bullshit rags on display while you wait for a cashier trainee to explain food stamps to new immigrants, while her manager unlocks the register.

So there’s the mistrial part.

Ms. Arias’ expert witnesses, to be brutally honest, did as much harm as good. As to the psychopathology of Jodi Arias, Dr. Richard Samuels did commendably well. (It also didn’t hurt his case with me when he came to virtually the same conclusions I had, and I only ever minored in Psych.)

But neither he nor Alice LaViolette knew when to stop talking, almost to the point of making themselves and their expert opinions take back seat to whatever they said beyond having made their points.

Samuels, however, a highly-regarded expert in his field, did snap back at Prosecutor Juan Martinez on a couple of occasions during cross. In defending his reputation, he verbally struck out at Martinez, so he may have redeemed himself. LaViolette, on the other hand, had no right to scold Martinez or threaten to put him into a time-out.

But it was rare that Dr. Samuels stopped talking, even after Martinez seemed ready to move on. I am a native New Yorker, and I know there ain’t one of us who can tell a story in 25 words or less. It also explains why the buildings in Manhattan are so tall — elevator speeches take a minimum of 50 floors to complete. If there are enough stops.

And then there’s the matter of misgivings. Reasonable doubt, according to dictionary.law.com means: “not being sure of a criminal defendant’s guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror…must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable….”

From the jury instructions (as read by Judge Stephens): “An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”

I believe the following evidence is true, along with my reasons:

Jodi was taking pictures of Travis in the shower (evidence: time-stamped picture).

Jodi dropped the camera (evidence: time-stamped picture of ceiling).

Travis went ballistic, yelling and cursing, and in his anger lunged at Jodi, throwing her to the bathroom floor, although not with a body slam. More likely he took her by the shoulders or upper arms and threw her down, or shoved her, as her father had done when she was a teenager (evidence: circumstantial, but take into account the next item).

Reliving that moment — when her father threw her against a piece of furniture and knocked her out — that was the instant at which Jodi Ann Arias snapped (deduction from photo evidence of chaotic scene, and from the 62-second time span of the entire fight).

Furthermore, she was adequately provoked at that instant (evidence: circumstantial).

So therefore I have what I think is enough of a reasonable doubt that this killing was first degree premeditated murder, according to the law. This is a binary decision. Yes/No, Black/White, On/Off. Premeditated or instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion? I don’t know, but I have doubt, and there’s my reasoning. That remains a zero, because of our Constitutional presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil suit for unlawful death, she would be found guilty by the preponderance of evidence, because Jodi’s causing Travis Alexander’s wrongful death is more true than not, in addition to which she admitted it on the stand. But reasonable doubt does not exist in civil court. On the other hand, in a case such as we’re all watching, it is certainly reasonable to believe that Travis and/or Jodi snapped in an instant.

As to second degree murder, the requirement that “The risk (of taking action that would have endangered Travis Alexander’s life) must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have done,” is not apparent beyond a reasonable doubt, that doubt being that Jodi Arias was “a reasonable person” at the time she was in that situation. Same reasoning that I gave in my illustration as to why first degree premeditated murder was not applicable.

After seeing and hearing all the evidence in this case, the ball keeps falling into the manslaughter slot. As much as the evidence is preponderantly against Jodi Ann Arias that she did cause the wrongful death of Travis Alexander, including her admitting as much when she took the stand, according to my application of the law in this case, Jodi Arias is not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter.

Your civilly worded comments and opinions, and a LOT of you have them, please leave them here, and keep it clean.